Napster Debate Essay Example For Students

Napster Debate Essay The Napster DebateEssay written by keith1. BackgroundThe Napster software (http://www. napster.com), launched early in 1999, allows internet users to share and download MP3 files directly from any computer connected to the Napster network. The software is used by downloading a client program from the Napster site and then connecting to the network through this software, which allows sharing (uploading and downloading) of MP3 files between all users connected to the network. While Napster does not condone copyright infringement, there is no opportunity in the software to stop this, or for royalties to be paid to artists whose songs are being duplicated for free. Unlike similar file-sharing applications (Gnutella, Freenet), Napster limits users to uploading/downloading of MP3 files only. These files are compressed wave (.wav) files. The advantage of MP3 files is that they are approximately one-tenth the size of the corresponding . wav file and can be close-to-CD-quality. It is for this reason that many artists, record labels and other music industry stakeholders are concerned by the MP3 file format and applications like Napster that simplify the sharing of copyrighted material. Other file formats in common use on the Internet are not as threatening to the recording industry; primarily due to the reduced quality of the recording. Real audio (. ra, .rm) files have reduced sound quality (comparable to radio) and are usually streamed over a different protocol, allowing people to listen to songs without having (or being able) to download the source files. Another music file format common on the internet is the midi format. These files are of no threat to the music industry because the files are not actually a recording of the music; rather a set of instructions to the computer as to what sounds to play (and there is no way to duplicate vocal tracks). This file format is also becoming outdated and being used less and less. 2. ImpactThe reaction from recording artists, record labels and other music industry players has been varied, but primarily anti-Napster. The first action to be taken against Napster was by the band Metallica. In April of this year, they sued Napster Inc for copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court when Napster agreed to ban some 300,000 users who had allegedly downloaded Metallica songs. Again in June Napster Inc was sued for copyright infringement by The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a trade group representing the US recording industry, alleging Napster is†¦ enabling and encouraging the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music. Napster claims that Audio Home Recording Act that permits copying of material for personal use, allows its uses to swap MP3s. Napster further claims immunity by defining the company as an ISP under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The RIAA unsuccessfully applied to have an injunction to stop Napsters operations until after the court case in September, so Napster will continue to operate until (and if) the court rules against Napster. Other artists and record labels (http://www.napster. com/speakout/artists.html and http://www.napster.com/speakout/labels. html) have responded to the advent of Napster and similar applications in a more positive way, embracing the new technology rather than rejecting it. On their website, the Offspring says MP3 technology and programs such as Napster a vital and necessary means to promote music and foster better relationships with our fans. Interestingly enough, the Offsprings last album, Americana, was made available online illegally before commercially released, yet it is the bands best-selling album to date. Furthermore, a number of surveys have proven that Napster users actually buy more CDs, after sampling the songs online (http://www. theregister.co Long Days Journey - Significance of Fog Essay Perhaps eventually sites like e-music.com will partner with all labels, including the bigger ones and will offer a better service (faster downloads, better quality files, more variety etc) than Napster can. However, the fact that over US$15 million has been invested in Napster Inc means that Napster will not die easily. If the RIAA is successful in its current lawsuit against the company, Napster will just change direction. A few solutions have been suggested. Probably the most practical and realistic alternative that has been suggested is that Napster Inc pays royalties to artists when their songs are downloaded, much like the radio pays artists when their songs are played. Another solution is that Napster could work with the music industry to distribute certain sample tracks to the public. These tracks could be distributed royalty-free as promotion for the album, or Napster could agree to pay royalties. Another solution being adopted by other similar information-sharing applications like Napster, Freenet and Gnutella is to make file transfers over the application anonymous. Adding to that, the fact that the central servers themselves do not have to contain any copyrighted files, tracking down users breaching copyright legislation will be incredibly difficult. 4. Pros and Cons of Possible SolutionsThe option of Napster paying royalties to artists whose songs are downloaded would be a positive move because it would mean that artists receive fair compensation for their work. However, on the other hand, to support the enormous cost of such a move, Napster would either have to turn into a paid subscription service, or show advertising (which wouldnt necessarily cover the costs). Added to this, the cost of modifying the application, and working out a way to determine what songs have been downloaded, the administration costs for Napster would skyrocket. The option of a cooperative effort with the music industry has the advantage of being totally legal and stopping all conflicts between Napster and the RIAA. However, such a model would mean a great reduction in the number of songs available and would eliminate the sharing aspect of the program. The advantage of the anonymous peer-to-peer model is that if no corporation, individual or other entity claims ownership, no one can be sued. And because no files are stored on the central server, no copyright is being infringed there. The disadvantage of this method, would be that Napster would still be breaking the law, and undoubtedly new legislation would be brought in and measures would be taken to stop the service. Furthermore, if Napster could not take credit officially for their software, then they could not profit from it (something they need to do, considering the investment in the company) 5. RecommendationsI believe that Napster is a valuable program and an indication of things to come. However, in its current state, it will have a very hard time remaining legal. I believe the only way Napster will survive will be to change its service (and it may in fact be forced to by the courts). I would suggest that Napster develops some system of paying royalties to artists whose songs are downloaded over their software. It is really the only practical way that Napster can continue and even though it will cost the company a lot to implement this system, it will mean that Napster will be safe from litigation by the music industry. It will mean that Napster users will no longer have to worry that they are breaking the law, and will encourage artists to embrace online distribution. I would recommend that Napster subsidises the cost of the royalty payments by showing advertising within the application (much like GetRight (http://www.getright. com/) and CuteFTP (http://www.cuteftp.com) do). This advertising could be used by advertisers to target music enthusiasts, meaning increased revenue for Napster. I believe that if the royalty option, subsidised by advertising is implemented, Napster will be able to continue safely and profitably. Social Issues